JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 02.11.2010 in E.A.No. 18 of 2007 in E.P.No. 8 of 2007 in O.S.No. 419 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at NTR Nagar, Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the application filed by the appellants herein under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. seeking dismissal of Execution Petition No. 8 of 2007 was dismissed by the learned Executing Court. 2. The appellants herein are the claim petitioners, third parties; the respondent No. 1 is the decree holder and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are judgment debtors in O.S. No. 419 of 2006. Originally, the decree holder, respondent No. 1 herein, filed the suit in O.S. No. 419 of 2006 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20.08.2005 executed by the judgment debtors, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein in respect of suit schedule property. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 remained ex parte to the suit proceedings. Ultimately, the suit was decreed ex parte on 11.10.2006 as prayed for and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit schedule property within two months from the date of judgment by receiving balance sale consideration. In default of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to do so, the respondent No. 1 was granted liberty to get the sale deed executed through the court by depositing the balance sale consideration into the Court after lapse of two months. Since the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not come forward to execute the regular sale deed within the specified time, the respondent No. 1 initiated execution proceedings in E.P. No. 8 of 2007 by depositing the balance sale consideration. At this stage, the appellants-M/s. Sri Sri Housing & Constructions herein filed E.A. No. 18 of 2007 under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. seeking dismissal of E.P. No. 8 of 2007 contending inter alia that the appellant No.1 is the owner and possessor of property in total extent of Ac.8-18 gts., of Polkampally village, Ibrahimpatan having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 25.11.2006 (Ex.A.1) from the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and others; that the appellant No. 1, in turn, executed a registered Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (Ex.A.2) in favour of the appellant No. 2 for an extent of Ac.7-23 cents, appointing the appellant No. 2 as his agent to enter into sub contract of sale. Thereafter, the appellants started developmental activity in the suit schedule property for residential use. On 02.07.2007, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 with other vendors of the appellants, in collusion with the respondent No. 1/decree holder have obstructed the work and tried to grab the property. Since the respondents have no right to make any claim in the suit schedule property, the appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No. 1696 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge and obtained ad-interim injunction on 19.07.2007. The respondents filed counter and written statements contesting the suit on the basis of which, the appellants came to know about the filing of the E.P.No. 8 of 2007. Hence, they filed the E.A. seeking dismissal of the E.P. 3. The respondent No. 1 contested the E.A. by filing counter affidavit. 4. On behalf of appellants, P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. The respondent No. 1 herself examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.8. The Executing Court, having analyzed the entire evidence brought on record, by the impugned order, dismissed the E.A. holding that the appellants are not having any right, title and interest in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence, the appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/third party claimants and the respondent No. 1/decree holder. Perused the material available on record. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the learned Executing Court dismissed the application on erroneous view without properly considering the scope of the application filed by the appellants and also the provisions of Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. Once the application under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. is filed, it has to be treated as a regular suit, but the Executing Court has proceeded with the matter without framing any issues. The learned Executing Court has lost sight of the fact that the appellants are the bona fide purchasers by paying valuable sale consideration to the respondent Nos. The learned Executing Court has lost sight of the fact that the appellants are the bona fide purchasers by paying valuable sale consideration to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and others by virtue of registered sale deed bearing document No.15913/2006, dated 25.11.2006 (Ex.A.1) and that they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property with absolute rights. Ex.A.2 is the registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA executed by appellant No. 1 in favour of appellant No. 2 in respect of Ac.7.23 gunts out of the total suit land. The Executing Court ought to have seen that the respondent No.1 filed O.S. No. 419 of 2006 in collusion with respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and obtained the ex parte decree in order to defeat the valuable rights of the appellants over the schedule property. Exs.A.5 & A.6 certificates issued by the banks clearly disclose that the appellants are the bona fide purchasers of the schedule land by paying the valuable sale consideration of Rs.33,80,000/-. Ex.A.5, Encumbrance Certificate issued by the competent authority even discloses that there is no encumbrance in respect of the schedule property as on the date of execution of sale deed under Ex.A.1. Even the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was not properly appreciated by the Executing Court. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1/decree holder sought to sustain the impugned order and decree passed by the Executing Court contending that the Executing Court after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly dismissed the E.A. and the same needs no interference by this Court. 8. Admitted facts of the case are that on the strength of agreement of sale dated 20.08.2005, the respondent No. 1 filed the suit seeking specific performance in respect of the suit schedule property against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, which came to be decreed ex parte on 11.10.2006. It is also on record that subsequent to passing of the decree, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed two applications i.e., I.A.No.2228 of 2006 under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act and I.A.No.2229 of 2006 under Order IX Rule XIII CPC to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 11.10.2006. Those two applications were allowed on payment of costs of Rs.200/- each and filing of written statement on or before 11.07.2007. 2 to 4 filed two applications i.e., I.A.No.2228 of 2006 under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act and I.A.No.2229 of 2006 under Order IX Rule XIII CPC to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 11.10.2006. Those two applications were allowed on payment of costs of Rs.200/- each and filing of written statement on or before 11.07.2007. From that date, the time was extended till 18.07.2007. Even on that date, as the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 failed to comply the said orders, both the said applications in I.A.Nos.2228 of 2006 and 2229 of 2009 came to be dismissed. From these circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the decree is obtained as a collusive action by the respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The record further discloses that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff deposited balance sale consideration of Rs.10,20,000/- on 09.01.2007. Even according to the appellants, they have purchased the suit property under sale deed dated 25.11.2006 i.e., 1 ½ months after passing of the decree in favour of respondent No. 1 in the suit. But, as pointed out by the trial Court, the factum of the appellants purchasing the suit lands through sale deed, Ex.A.1 from respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and others on 25.11.2006 was not pleaded in the affidavits (Exs.B.1 & B.3) filed in respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in I.A. Nos. 2228 & 2229 of 2006, which were filed on 30.11.2006. It appears, after dismissal of those applications, the appellants filed the suit in O.S. No. 1696 of 2007 on the strength of Ex.A.1, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District seeking permanent injunction against the respondent No. 1 and others, suppressing all these aspects. Though interim injunction was granted initially in I.A. No. 692 of 2008 in the said suit, the I.A. was dismissed by order dated 05.12.2009 as can be seen from Ex.B.8. In these circumstances, the Executing Court was right in observing that the sale deed dated 25.11.2006, Ex.A.1, will not over ride the decree passed by the Court on 11.10.2006 in O.S. No. 419 of 2006 in favour of respondent No. 1. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants in Shenhagam and others v. K.K. Rathinavel, 2022 (3) ALD 306 (SC), G.N.R. Babu @ S.N. Babu v. Dr. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants in Shenhagam and others v. K.K. Rathinavel, 2022 (3) ALD 306 (SC), G.N.R. Babu @ S.N. Babu v. Dr. B.C. Muthappa and others, 2022 (5) ALD 288 (SC) and P. Meenakshisundaram v. P. Vijayakumar and Another, (2018) 15 SCC 80 , are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 9. It is main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the trial Court decreed the suit without consider the scope of the claim petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of Civil Procedure Code. Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC reads as follows:- 1) “A person making a claim or objection to an attachment need show, at present, merely possession of the property. According to the recommendation made in the Fourteenth Report the inquiry must be full and cover questions of ultimate right and title. To achieve that object, changes have been proposed. 2) The question has been raised whether, in view of the fact that suits existing under rule 63 will now be replaced by an inquiry in execution (under the proposed scheme), it. would not be advisable to make an express provision as to whether questions of fraud, for example, those under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, could be considered in proceedings under rules 58 to 63. 3) It is considered unnecessary to make any such provision for this purpose only. 4) It is considered unnecessary to make an express provision as to whether the proceedings under rule 58 et seq and the decisions given thereon will be binding as between the judgment-debtor and a third party claimant. The answer to that question would depend on the question-who are the parties to the suit and what are the matters raised therein2. 5) It is considered unnecessary to make a provision that a third person who is affected by the attachment is not bound to take proceedings under these rules and can file a regular suit. The answer to that question would depend on the question-who are the parties to the suit and what are the matters raised therein2. 5) It is considered unnecessary to make a provision that a third person who is affected by the attachment is not bound to take proceedings under these rules and can file a regular suit. That is the existing law, and that position will continue.” A reading of above clearly establishes that the Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC deals with the investigation of claims to attachment of property in execution proceedings on the ground that such property is not liable to attachment, and it is for the trial Court to go through that claim as regards the examination of the claimants, and in all other respects, as if they were parties to the suit. 10. In the case on hand, by virtue of the decree passed on 11.10.2006, the respondent No. 1 deposited the balance sale consideration into the Court and filed the E.P. seeking execution of registered sale deed through the court on failure to execute the same by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as directed by the Court. Therefore, the very application filed by the appellants under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. is not maintainable as there was no attachment of the property and in fact, the decree sought to be executed by the respondent No. 1 in E.P. No. 8 of 2007 was a decree for execution of registered sale deed through the Court in default of execution of the same by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by receiving the balance sale consideration. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, it is not the version of P.W.1 that the sale deed Ex.A.1 is preceded by any agreement of sale between himself and the judgment debtors i.e., respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and others. It is only the evidence of P.W.2, one of the attestors of agreement of sale, dated 20.08.2005 that in May, 2005 there was an agreement of sale in favour of appellants executed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and others and on his confrontation before signing the agreement of sale dated 20.08.2005, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 informed him that the earlier agreement of sale executed in favour of appellants was cancelled. 2 to 4 and others and on his confrontation before signing the agreement of sale dated 20.08.2005, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 informed him that the earlier agreement of sale executed in favour of appellants was cancelled. But it is rather curious to note that nowhere in his evidence P.W.1 pleaded that Ex.A.1 was preceded by any agreement of sale. Therefore, the version of P.W.2 in this regard was rightly rejected by the Executing Court. Hence, the Executing Court rightly held that the sale deed under Ex.A.1 dated 25.11.2006 is vulnerable and invalid. Even if Ex.A.1 is accepted, by the time of its execution, the vendors i.e., respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have already suffered a decree. Therefore, once it is proved that on the date of transfer of any tangible property, the seller of the property did not have any subsisting right, title or interest over it, then a buyer of such property would not get any right, title and interest in the property purchased by him for consideration or otherwise. 11. In view of the foregoing observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the said findings of the Executing Court which are based on appreciation of evidence in proper prospective and the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in E.A.No. 18 of 2007 in E.P.No. 8 of 2007 in O.S.No. 419 of 2006 dated 02.11.2010. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.